i was wondering about this for while now. we learned possitive aswell as negative things about nucleair power. we know what can happen with it and we know what we can do with it.
now to come on topic. we use nucleair power for several things, electricity for houses but also for aircraft carriers and submarines, even for bombs. but why wouldnt people try it for aircraft? okay it can be unstable but hey this is just in theory.
what do you guys think of it? just think of the possibilities it could have.
we have pro's and contra's, but it doesnt hurt anyone to discuss a theory

I would have thought that the initial objection would be the weight and bulk of a nuclear powerplant and the associated shielding. This would almost certainly be too much for any military a/c, and I don't think that members of the public would pay to sit in an aluminium tube with a reactor, no matter how well shielded it was.

Another issue is how you apply the energy generated in the reactor. In ships and power stations, the energy is used to heat water, creating steam that drives turbines. I suppose this principle could be harnessed to turning an aircraft propeller, but it's a very expensive way of doing it, and you would have to lug a quantity of water around with you, which would negate any weight saving made by not carrying 'conventional' fuel.

Up in Idaho, they tried that awhile back. Lots of reasons were put forth as to why the plane never flew, but the major one cited was "what happens if it crashes or got shot down?" The potential cleanup would be a nightmare. At the same time, the Army was working on a small portable trashcan-sized breeder reactor to provide power out in the field. It didn't work out too well: SL-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia